HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140866 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20140902Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 9:09 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
14 -0866.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [ mailto :Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 4:56 PM
To: Chris Roessler; Wilson, Travis W.; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric
Cc: Schaffer, Jeff; Smith, Heather; Scott Hunt; Wes Newell (newel I @ backwater. biz); Dunn, Maria T.
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Chris,
That sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for your patience working through this.
Todd
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 4:39 PM
To: Wilson, Travis W.; Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric
Cc: Schaffer, Jeff; Smith, Heather; Scott Hunt; Wes Newell (newel I @ backwater. biz); Dunn, Maria T.
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
OK, I talked to Todd again and I believe we're good to proceed. I tracked additions in the attached, updated version of
the minutes. You'll see the following paragraph to address the issue we've been emailing about over the past week:
Baker does not plan to seek mitigation credit for the wetland cells below the three of the four culverts. The NCIRT views
the wetland cells as an integral part of the stream restoration, not separate components. Baker will likely not propose
credit for the fourth culvert (labeled Reach R2b in the accompanying map), per NCIRT recommendation. However, this
tributary drains approximately 150 acres and if the level of effort (i.e., engineering and construction) needed to create a
functional wetland turns out to be substantial, Baker may propose valley - length credit for this wetland cell in the
mitigation plan.
Hope that and the updated minutes are acceptable but if not please let me know and we'll get to yes. Thanks very much,
Chris
Chris Roessler I Technical Manager I Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., a unit of Michael Baker International
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 1 Cary, NC 27518 1 [D] 919 - 481 -5737 1 [M] 919 - 624 -0905 croessler @mbakerintl.com
www.mbakerintl.com
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Wilson, Travis W. [ mailto :travis.wilson @ncwildlife.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:39 AM
To: Chris Roessler; Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric
Cc: Schaffer, Jeff; Smith, Heather; Scott Hunt; Wes Newell (newel I @ backwater. biz); Dunn, Maria T.
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Sorry I'm late to weigh in here, but I will add my thoughts. I had not viewed any of the drainages coming from the east
as separate credit generating components of the project. I was looking at the wetland BMP's at the culverts to be part
of the overall treatment for the reach 1 and any necessary work associated with R2b would be due to designing an
appropriate stable tie in to reach 1. The proposed work for those drainage areas is necessary in order to provide
improvements to reach 1.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 11:07 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric
Cc: Schaffer, Jeff; Smith, Heather; Scott Hunt; Wes Newell (newel I @ backwater. biz); Wilson, Travis W.; Dunn, Maria T.
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
No problem, Todd. We'll work it out. My attached maps include sticky notes that may help for communication. I think
almost all of the drainage coming into that U- shaped feature goes to the north which becomes Reach R2b below the
culvert outlet.
I think the channel you're referring to below (one that flows to the southwest) receives only local drainage from the
immediate vicinity of that channel. We will include wetlands at the culvert outlets for both of these channels but the one
that is Reach R2b will need to be much larger because it is receiving drainage from 153 acres. Does that make sense? -
Chris
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [ mailto :Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:46 AM
To: Chris Roessler; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wes Newell
(newel I @ backwater. biz); Travis Wilson (travis.wilson @ncwildlife.org); maria.dunn @ncwildlife.org
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Chris,
Sorry for the confusion. I understood from the field meeting that the majority of the drainage that came in from the
field on that side of the tributary was diverted into the ditch that flowed back to the southwest and into the main
channel upstream of the culvert in question, which would substantially reduce the size of the watershed draining to that
culvert. Is this not the case?
Thanks,
Todd
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 4:21 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wes Newell
(newel I @ backwater. biz); Travis Wilson (travis.wilson @ncwildlife.org); maria.dunn @ncwildlife.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Just one more thing to point out. The valley length of the Reach R2b wetland will be the line from that particular culvert
outlet to where it connects to the main channel.
So it will be about 60 -75 feet in length (longer obviously means a bigger wetland) because it has to at least cross the
buffer on the right bank of the main channel. A large area will need to be excavated to create the wetland and
accommodate flows from Reach R2b. Awarding credit for this would then reduce the start of the project on the
upstream end by an equal length ( -60 -75 feet).
This does not appear to be much in terms of the total credits (less than 3% of 2,500), especially considering the wetland
benefit provided. Yet the work needed to create this wetland is much more than the three other culverts.
Thanks for considering, sorry I didn't think of this sooner. - Chris
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:36 PM
To: 'Tugwell, Todd SAW'; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wes Newell
(newel I @ backwater. biz); Travis Wilson (travis.wilson @ncwildlife.org); maria.dunn @ncwildlife.org
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thanks again, Todd. I am only suggesting that we receive valley length credit for the wetland that will be created along
Reach R2b. The difference is that the drainage area for this wetland is significant, and thus creating it will require more
thought, materials, and earthwork to do properly. Consider that the entire project drainage area is approximately 550
acres, the drainage area for Reach R2b is 153 acres, and the drainage area for Reach R3 is approximately 34 acres. You
can see those in the attached PDF. I'm not proposing that we get credit on the 3 other culverts because the drainage
area for those are less than 10 acres each and the wetland creation will be incidental. - Chris
Chris Roessler I Technical Manager I Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 1 Cary, NC 27518 1 919.481.5737 (direct) 1 919.624.0905 (cell) 1919.463.5490 (fax)
croessler @mbakerintl.com I www.mbakerintl.com
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [ mailto :Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:02 PM
To: Chris Roessler; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wes Newell
(newel I @ backwater. biz); Travis Wilson (travis.wilson @ncwildlife.org); maria.dunn @ncwildlife.org
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Chris,
Putting a BMP on an existing channel is definitely frowned on (or worse by EPA), but in this circumstance you would
effectively be routing flow through a wetland, rather than putting the wetland on a stream, which is different. I also
think that we have some latitude to do this kind of thing for restoration projects since you will have to relocated the
larger ditch anyway. NW 27 has some language that talks about conversion of one aquatic resource into another, but in
this case you will gain wetland without losing stream, which is the key.
With regard to providing credit for the BMP, are you talking about just the BMP at the end of R2b, or all the BMPs that
receive flow from the fields (I thought there were more than one)? And what is the difference? We have had other
projects where we have given credit for wetland BMPs that were designed to an appropriate standard, but those were a
little different in that the BMPs were on non - jurisdictional drainages that were going to be excluded from the project if
we did not find a way to provide credit. Also, the stream restorations on those projects were more traditional in the
sense that the BMPs were providing their own function on top of what the stream restoration was doing. In this case, I
think it was the concept of the BMPs and associated wetland /floodplain function that ultimately convinced the IRT that
the project was providing any uplift to begin with, otherwise you are just relocating a ditch. So now to award additional
credit for the BMPs themselves seems to be further watering down the amount of functional uplift the project will
provide. I think we also agreed to a better credit ratio on the trib coming in from the west, as well, which should help
you out with the overall amount of credit to be produced by the project.
Based on the above, I don't believe additional credit is warranted in this circumstance, but I would like to hear from
other IRT members who were at the site meeting. I've copied Travis Wilson and Maria Dunn with the WRC since I don't
think they were included in the original email. (Travis and Maria, please read from beginning. I've attached the
referenced minutes as well.)
Todd
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:28 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wes Newell
(newel I @ backwater. biz)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thanks, Todd. Your description of the location is correct. That's interesting - I didn't realize that you could essentially
impound a jurisdictional stream by creating a wetland along it as long as no stream length is lost.
I thought low flow must be maintained at all times through a jurisdictional channel (whether it is new or existing).
So, in light of your explanation, I agree that a wetland between the culvert and the restored channel is appropriate.
Since this particular outlet is a larger system that will require more study, grading, etc., would it be acceptable to
propose valley length credit for this wetland only? -Chris
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [ mailto :Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:15 AM
To: Chris Roessler; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wes Newell
(newel I @ backwater. biz)
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Thanks for the explanation, Chris. With regard to Reach R2b, are you saying can't do any wetland treatment /BMP on
that channel because it is jurisdictional or because of the size of the watershed? My recollection is that the tributary in
question picks up drainage from a field ditch to the east and also from a tributary in the cutover area, and then flows
through a culvert directly into the ditch (the tributary to be restored). If you put a wetland bmp between the outfall of
the culvert (which is not proposed to be replaced) and the restored channel, you would not be losing any jurisdictional
stream, just adding a wetland between the two. I think the IRT emphasized during the meeting that the treatment
resulting from the constructed floodplain and wetland BMPs that treat the field runoff is really going to be the primary
source of functional uplift with this project, so if you construct another short stream segment, you will be bypassing any
treatment. Any thoughts on this?
Todd
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 8:40 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wes Newell
(newel I @ backwater. biz)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
OK, Todd et al., back from vacation. Please see my responses below your comments starting in CAPS (not for emphasis,
just to distinguish my comments from yours;).
Please let me know if you're OK with adding this email (including my comments) to the files or would like me to update
the minutes. No problem either way.
Thank you, Chris
Chris Roessler I Technical Manager I Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 1 Cary, NC 27518 1 919.481.5737 (direct) 1 919.624.0905 (cell) 1919.463.5490 (fax)
croessler @mbakerintl.com I www.mbakerintl.com
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:40 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thanks for the prompt comments, Todd. I'm on vacation today and tomorrow and will provide a response to the
questions you raised on Monday. But basically, I think we're on the same page, just explaining our perspectives. - Chris
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:42 AM
To: Chris Roessler; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Chris,
I have a couple comments on the minutes you prepared:
* One of the things we discussed on the site was making sure that the new channel is small and that you try to get a
lot of floodplain access since that is really where any uplift will occur, with the possibility of adding some sinuosity to the
stream, at least alternating the channel to opposite sides of the constructed floodplain.
AGREED. I thought I captured that with this sentence "Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) proposes Priority Level II
restoration with an emphasis on frequent overbank flooding to increase floodplain contact. Similarly, the width and
extent of the restored floodplain will be maximized to the greatest extent feasible to provide greater contact area with
overbank flows."
I'D LIKE TO ADD that we'll work out the channel dimension and sinuosity in the mitigation plan after further research,
including a study of reference reaches. We'll definitely include pools and target alternating the channel to opposite sides
of the floodplain. But I think we'll also want to maximize floodplain LENGTH because if we build a smaller channel that
increases overbank flooding frequency then braiding is more likely, which could lead to only getting valley length credit
for restoration. If we have low sinuosity then there shouldn't be a problem if there is limited braiding because the valley
length and restored channel length will be close.
* I believe we discussed the idea of including some vernal pools in the floodplain, if possible.
AGREED.
* Your notes reference reach R2b, and the possibility of getting credit for any channel constructed. I don't recall if we
discussed /agreed to that - my recollection was that there would be some type of treatment downstream of the culverts
draining the field, not necessarily channels connecting the culverts to the reconstructed stream, since the idea was to try
to treat the runoff that was concentrated trough the culverts, not channel it directly to the stream. Please address this
in the mitigation plan.
I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS AFTER OUR MEETING AND MY REASONING FOLLOWS. Reach R2b is the continuation of a
jurisdictional channel (this is the bigger tributary coming from the west) so we won't be able to do a detained wetland
cell below the culvert. Instead, we'll construct a floodplain for it (same as the rest of the project streams), which will
need to cross at least the 50 feet of buffer before tying into the main channel. All of this points to the idea that this will
also be a restored channel and deserving of credit to compensate construction cost. I'm thinking it will only be about 60
feet or so of channel length. I will also address this in the mitigation plan.
* Lastly, I wanted the record to note that the IRT felt that the location proposed for the new channel is not what we
believe to be the historic condition on the site, and that the preference would have been to try to reconnect the channel
to the existing, sinuous drainage to the east of the current ditch, but that due to limitations caused by upstream
flooding, the alternative is to dig a new channel through a upland ridge (IRT's interpretation).
AGREED.
I don't think you need to update the memo if you don't want to, as I will include this email in our file for our records.
Thanks,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of the Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Office: 919 - 846 -2564
Mobile: 919 - 710 -0240
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:26 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Flea Hill meeting minutes
Hi Todd -> Would you please review these minutes and forward them to the other members of the IRT? Thanks for
meeting us out there and considering the site. It sounds good to target multiple overbank flows per year.
We'd appreciate any comments you might have by the end of August, even if it's just an OK. Thanks a lot, Chris
Chris Roessler I Technical Manager I Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 1 Cary, NC 27518 1 919.481.5737 (direct) 1 919.624.0905 (cell) 1919.463.5490 (fax)
croessler @mbakerintl.com <mailto :croessler @mbakerintl.com> I www. mbakerintl .com <http: / /www.mbakerintl.com>
<http://www.mbakerintl.com/>
Cyan_Baker Logo Centered -01
cid: i mage006. png @01CF83F1.2E000390
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
7